Jump to content


Photo

Ark Encounter Project: Ken Ham Holds Live Streaming Conference


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#21 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2014 - 12:38 PM

 
Pi, what observable universe are you referring to? The one that requires that 2/3 of it be made up of UNOBSERVABLE "dark energy"?

The one I'm observing when I see things like Sn1987a and Andromeda.

 

We can observe the effects of dark energy in the measured accelleration of the expansion of the universe, so we know it's there.  "Dark Energy" is called that only because we don't know what it is.  For all we know, it's the result of God "stretching" the heavens.... though that stretching isn't nearly enough to solve the distant starlight problem of YEC.  For example, Sn1987a and Andromeda would need to exhibit significant red-shift.... much more than the most distant objects observed.  Sn1987a has only a tiny redshift and Andromeda is blue shifted.

 

But that's a different topic.



#22 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 March 2014 - 03:24 PM


piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

The technology of moving large stones hasn't been lost.  We've used wood rollers to do it successfully. 

 

The wood on the ark wouldn't need to last 4,000 years, but it would need to last over 100

 

100 years?  Oh I wish skeptics knew their Bibles better.  There's nothing in scripture that says Noah built the ark over a period of 100 years.  Most creationists believe it took him 5-20 years at the most.  And the ark would have had to have been afloat for 1 year.  

 

Why this is a stumbling block to you I have no idea.  

 

Also, of course we can move stones, but building pyramids out of them is another story.  Cutting them perfectly and stacking them an aligning them to true north.  Sorry, there has been a lot of speculation, but even skeptics admit the technology has been lost.  

 

paisan, just admit it.  You're looking for reasons not to trust the Bible.  

 

piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

I'm sure the attached casino has nothing to do with that.  Nor do the dozen or so other landmark attractions in the same area.  Probably the fact the city in which it's located is also known as "Sin City" is irrelevant also.  Yeah....  people go to Vegas just to look at that pyramid.

 

 

Exactly and we can build them out of glass and steel.  But huge multi-ton stones?  Try it some time. smile.png

 

piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

As for Ham..... what he's building is a "mock-up" not the real deal.  I won't dispute a wood structure the size of the Ark can be built.  The question is whether or not that structure would be seaworthy.   Oh yeah .... he still has less than half the money needed to complete the Ark.  My prediction is that it will never be completed.  (This is one of those times I hope I'm wrong.)

 

 

You're hoping this because you don't want Genesis to be true. Fair enough.  I hope he finishes it.  

 


piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

I didn't say Noah couldn't get metal parts.  In fact, I clearly pointed out the Flood would have been during the Bronze Age and Noah would have has at least some access to metal.  What I said was that:

1)  The Biblical account makes no mention of metal.... to which I think you agree.

2)  It was not normal at that time to make extensive use of metal in shipbuilding.

 

I quoted the verse which says that metal was actually mastered before the flood, and therefore any post flood bronze age.  But I know.... bible.... not your bag.

 

 

piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

I will freely admit that I do not accept every word of the Bible as literally true.  Further, I will concede that I examine the evidence with no precondition that evidence in conflict with my interpretation of the Bible is invalid by definition.  Finally, I see the situation as "truth cannot contradict truth."  The Bible, and its interpretation are much more subject to human fallibility than the kind of evidence I examine to form my conclusions.

 

I really couldn't care less about Sprong.  The issue is a conflict between the observable universe and a literal reading of Genesis.

 

Okay, so you ignore science when it comes to the Resurrection, but embrace science when it comes to Genesis.  Why?  You say you don't care about Spong, but that's evading the issue. Why is he wrong for spiritualizing the Resurrection, based on modern medical science?  How is what he's doing different then what you're doing? 

 

IOW's you just seem to pick and choose where you apply science and where you don't.  You like the Jesus story and the resurrection, so you ignore science.  My guess is you probably like the virgin birth story, so you ignore science there also.  But creation, Curse, Flood, you don't like, so you hide behind science.  My guess is also that on social issues like abortion and H*mos*xual marriage, you run back to science.  I just want to know why? 

 

You're starting to become extremely evasive.  



#23 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 19 March 2014 - 04:17 PM

" IOW's you just seem to pick and choose where you apply science and where you don't. You like the Jesus story and the resurrection, so you ignore science. My guess is you probably like the virgin birth story, so you ignore science there also. But creation, Curse, Flood, you don't like, so you hide behind science. My guess is also that on social issues like abortion and H*mos*xual marriage, you run back to science. I just want to know why? "

This sort of thing perplexes me.

The "all or nothing sort of things" (and I'm guessing be ye hot or cold)

It makes me wonder, if there are certain things that are miraculous, some with scientific backing, others with not so much... and one Christian pushes a matter so far, to thrust another out of the faith.

(of course, that depends on if one believes one is "once saved always saved")

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2014 - 05:32 PM

Sure.  When truckers have overweight loads all they do is add more axles.  Why should this be any different?  Also, the rollers could be clad in metal much like a wagon wheel.  This would greatly increase the load bearing ability of each log.

 

Do you have any idea of the weight of those blocks? Perhaps try 20 tonnes...

 

Ah so now you have to hypothesise logs clad in metal, why not just admit that advanced technology was available in those times?

 

Also considering as a round log there would be minimal contact area touching the block and the log therefore the pressure would be focused on those areas and would invariably change the shape of the log... not round = not rolling

 

Lets go with one of the larger blocks, 6x6 feet for 60 tonnes...

 

15 inch diametre for logs with an extra inch to make up for spacing

 

6 feet = 72 inches = 4.5 logs round up for 5 logs...

 

60 tonnes / 5 = 12 tonnes per log

 

Do you seriously believe that a log can withstand 12 tonnes of solid rock?



#25 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:00 PM

fun video about block moving


  • piasan likes this

#26 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 March 2014 - 07:18 PM

 

Do you have any idea of the weight of those blocks? Perhaps try 20 tonnes...

 

Ah so now you have to hypothesise logs clad in metal, why not just admit that advanced technology was available in those times?

 

Also considering as a round log there would be minimal contact area touching the block and the log therefore the pressure would be focused on those areas and would invariably change the shape of the log... not round = not rolling

 

Lets go with one of the larger blocks, 6x6 feet for 60 tonnes...

 

15 inch diametre for logs with an extra inch to make up for spacing

 

6 feet = 72 inches = 4.5 logs round up for 5 logs...

 

60 tonnes / 5 = 12 tonnes per log

 

Do you seriously believe that a log can withstand 12 tonnes of solid rock?

 

Good points.  It's interesting that many have turned to aliens for a solution, rather than just accepting ancient man was smarter.  

 

But what's going on here, is really just defiance.  I think greg and piasan have dug in, and will not admit Noah built an ark no matter how much evidence is put before them.  It's just human nature at work.  

 

The way I look at it, I think the ark is small potatoes compared to the pyramid.  We're talking what, 2 million plus stones, 5,000 pounds average, with the heavier ones weighing many times more.  Yeah, hey, that couldn't have been hard.  Just needs some trees and pulleys. We'll just stack em like legos.   

 

But a boat that needs to last a few years?  No way.  Too hard.  184.gif



#27 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:31 PM

Good points.  It's interesting that many have turned to aliens for a solution, rather than just accepting ancient man was smarter.  
 
But what's going on here, is really just defiance.  I think greg and piasan have dug in, and will not admit Noah built an ark no matter how much evidence is put before them.  It's just human nature at work.  
 
The way I look at it, I think the ark is small potatoes compared to the pyramid.  We're talking what, 2 million plus stones, 5,000 pounds average, with the heavier ones weighing many times more.  Yeah, hey, that couldn't have been hard.  Just needs some trees and pulleys. We'll just stack em like legos.   
 
But a boat that needs to last a few years?  No way.  Too hard.  :youcrazy:


Where have I dug in? I showed a video of a guy moving massive stones by himself.

#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:36 PM

 

Do you have any idea of the weight of those blocks? Perhaps try 20 tonnes...

 

Ah so now you have to hypothesise logs clad in metal, why not just admit that advanced technology was available in those times?

 

Also considering as a round log there would be minimal contact area touching the block and the log therefore the pressure would be focused on those areas and would invariably change the shape of the log... not round = not rolling

 

Lets go with one of the larger blocks, 6x6 feet for 60 tonnes...

 

15 inch diametre for logs with an extra inch to make up for spacing

 

6 feet = 72 inches = 4.5 logs round up for 5 logs...

 

60 tonnes / 5 = 12 tonnes per log

 

Do you seriously believe that a log can withstand 12 tonnes of solid rock?

You really should have researched this first.

 

Let's look at your claim about the "6x6" stone.  Rounding off, we'll use a 2 meter cube.  That would be 8 cubic meters or 8 million cubic centimeters.  One metric ton is 1000 kg (2200 lb).  If we look at 60 metric tons, that would be 60,000 kg or 60 million grams.  Dividing 60 million grams by 8 million cubic centimeters, I get a density of about 7.5 grams per cubic centimeter.  Iron has a density of 7.86 grams per cubic centimeter.  Are you talking about a block made of iron?

 

Granite has a density of only 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite )  The pyramids are made mainly of limestone.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid )  The density of limestone is only 2.16-2.56 g/cm3.  (Source: http://www.natural-s.../limestone.html ) 

 

If we merely adjust for the correct density of this hypothetical rock, we reduce the load by 2/3 to only 4 metric tons per roller.

 

The first question is what material your hypothetical blocks were made of and what is your source?  Or did you make this up?

 

BTW, my RESEARCH indicates the typical stone used in the pyramids ranged from about 5,000 - 9,000 pounds.  A block of 9,000 pounds is only about 4 metric tons.

 

The problem isn't figuring out how the Egyptians could have possibly moved those blocks.  It's which of several potential methods they did use.

 

 

 

fun video about block moving

Excellent ! ! !  It shows several simple methods using materials that would have been available to the Egyptians to move really big rocks and place them with precision.  Using pebbles as bearings was great.



#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:20 AM

You really should have researched this first.

 

Let's look at your claim about the "6x6" stone.  Rounding off, we'll use a 2 meter cube.  That would be 8 cubic meters or 8 million cubic centimeters.  One metric ton is 1000 kg (2200 lb).  If we look at 60 metric tons, that would be 60,000 kg or 60 million grams.  Dividing 60 million grams by 8 million cubic centimeters, I get a density of about 7.5 grams per cubic centimeter.  Iron has a density of 7.86 grams per cubic centimeter.  Are you talking about a block made of iron?

 

Granite has a density of only 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite )  The pyramids are made mainly of limestone.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid )  The density of limestone is only 2.16-2.56 g/cm3.  (Source: http://www.natural-s.../limestone.html ) 

 

If we merely adjust for the correct density of this hypothetical rock, we reduce the load by 2/3 to only 4 metric tons per roller.

 

The first question is what material your hypothetical blocks were made of and what is your source?  Or did you make this up?

 

BTW, my RESEARCH indicates the typical stone used in the pyramids ranged from about 5,000 - 9,000 pounds.  A block of 9,000 pounds is only about 4 metric tons.

 

The problem isn't figuring out how the Egyptians could have possibly moved those blocks.  It's which of several potential methods they did use.

 

 

 

Excellent ! ! !  It shows several simple methods using materials that would have been available to the Egyptians to move really big rocks and place them with precision.  Using pebbles as bearings was great.

 

4 tonnes per roller... Do you think this is acceptable?

 

 

I got the information from here

 

http://wiki.answers...._stone?#slide=1

 

I didn't "make it up" as you claim.

 

Perhaps consider that your own calculations using the density of rock determines that there would be 4 tonnes per roller, yet now somehow your "research" determines this would be 4 tonnes per block...

 

 

 

 

 

The problem isn't figuring out how the Egyptians could have possibly moved those blocks.  It's which of several potential methods they did use.

 

Figuring out how they could have moved the blocks IS determining the method they used... So this is your own self-contradictory claim.



#30 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 March 2014 - 10:42 AM

You really should have researched this first.

 

Let's look at your claim about the "6x6" stone.  Rounding off, we'll use a 2 meter cube.  That would be 8 cubic meters or 8 million cubic centimeters.  One metric ton is 1000 kg (2200 lb).  If we look at 60 metric tons, that would be 60,000 kg or 60 million grams.  Dividing 60 million grams by 8 million cubic centimeters, I get a density of about 7.5 grams per cubic centimeter.  Iron has a density of 7.86 grams per cubic centimeter.  Are you talking about a block made of iron?

 

Granite has a density of only 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite )  The pyramids are made mainly of limestone.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid )  The density of limestone is only 2.16-2.56 g/cm3.  (Source: http://www.natural-s.../limestone.html ) 

 

If we merely adjust for the correct density of this hypothetical rock, we reduce the load by 2/3 to only 4 metric tons per roller.

 

The first question is what material your hypothetical blocks were made of and what is your source?  Or did you make this up?

 

BTW, my RESEARCH indicates the typical stone used in the pyramids ranged from about 5,000 - 9,000 pounds.  A block of 9,000 pounds is only about 4 metric tons.

 

The problem isn't figuring out how the Egyptians could have possibly moved those blocks.  It's which of several potential methods they did use.

 

 

 

Excellent ! ! !  It shows several simple methods using materials that would have been available to the Egyptians to move really big rocks and place them with precision.  Using pebbles as bearings was great.

 

piasan, you are so evasive.  Again, what does moving blocks have to do with building pyramids??  This is like the equivalent of whittling a piece of wood for the ark.  

 

If this is proof to you the pyramids were built by men, why wouldn't a full size Ark in Kentucky which is an actual built structure, not just a bunch of wood being built moved around on ramps, also be proof to you?  

 

Again, you pick and choose what you believe, and what you accept as evidence, almost randomly. 

 

And I'm still waiting for an answer on why you pick and choose where to apply science to the Bible.  Seems it's based on the stories you like, rather than a consistent method like Spong uses.  



#31 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 20 March 2014 - 02:19 PM

Calminian. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it's not about a ship being built as much as it is the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Suffice it to say, I do think a wooden ship fully loaded and floating for a year in open ocean would be good evidence.

#32 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 March 2014 - 04:04 PM

Calminian. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it's not about a ship being built as much as it is the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Suffice it to say, I do think a wooden ship fully loaded and floating for a year in open ocean would be good evidence.

 

Yes, an ark sized vessel built today would be evidence we can build it today.  It doesn't prove, we could do it back then.  

 

Also, someone rising from the dead after 3 days would be evidence resurrections can happen today.  But we don't have the evidence today. Does this make you doubt the Bible?  Well apparently you and piasan have accepted that event even though science contradicts it.  I want to know why?  Why is the Resurrection so easy for you to believe, but the book of Genesis so hard?  

 

We do have the evidence of a well preserved history book, that's reliable, and was believed by Christ.  But that evidence doesn't do it for you for some reason.  For me, it's sufficient.  The flood legends around the world, and records of ancient ship building technology is just icing on the cake.  



#33 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 20 March 2014 - 04:46 PM

Yes, an ark sized vessel built today would be evidence we can build it today.  It doesn't prove, we could do it back then.  
 
Also, someone rising from the dead after 3 days would be evidence resurrections can happen today.  But we don't have the evidence today. Does this make you doubt the Bible?  Well apparently you and piasan have accepted that event even though science contradicts it.  I want to know why?  Why is the Resurrection so easy for you to believe, but the book of Genesis so hard?  
 
We do have the evidence of a well preserved history book, that's reliable, and was believed by Christ.  But that evidence doesn't do it for you for some reason.  For me, it's sufficient.  The flood legends around the world, and records of ancient ship building technology is just icing on the cake.


I don't know that it's so simple cut and dried like that. I have plenty of thoughts on a variety of texts.
Who said it's easy to believe in the resurrection? Do you remember the centurian who prayed?
What do you know of what Christ believed? Do you have the mind of God? What do the texts say, and what did they mean when they were spoken?

It is interesting to me that the early church did not have the doctrine of sola scriptura.

-
It is interesting that you mention "resurrection contradicts science."
So why, then would there not be an ancient earth? Why is that a problem?

-
And I don't know where you're getting that either Myself have a problem with the book of Genesis.
That's a large swath that you're assuming people are dismissing.

I'm hearing a literal historical creation narrative is being rejected by some.
I'm hearing that some people are not enough physical evidence of the flood to believe that IF it happened, God made it did not leave a geological impact.

-

Really, it's like you're filtering other peoples worldviews through your own and then seem frustrated when they're not consistent with yours. I don't know that you're frustrated, nor am I assuming your feelings.
  • piasan likes this

#34 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

I'm hearing a literal historical creation narrative is being rejected by some.

I'm hearing that some people are not enough physical evidence of the flood to believe that IF it happened, God made it did not leave a geological impact.

 

So what you're saying is, you really believe I'm better looking than you, but I'm merely asking why.  Again, that's not literally what you said, but I really believe that's the figurative meaning.  

 

Still waiting for an answer on this. 

 

I am finding it easier to dialog with you now that I"m taking interpretive liberties.  I'm finding what you're saying is much more favorable and am inclined to believe it, now.  



#35 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 20 March 2014 - 08:20 PM

So what you're saying is, you really believe I'm better looking than you, but I'm merely asking why.  Again, that's not literally what you said, but I really believe that's the figurative meaning.  
 
Still waiting for an answer on this. 
 
I am finding it easier to dialog with you now that I"m taking interpretive liberties.  I'm finding what you're saying is much more favorable and am inclined to believe it, now.


You're responding to this thread in the way you've mentioned in the other thread.

And Actually - It's proving my point that you could be taking interpretive liberties in either YEC or OEC.

Theopneustos. How you interpret that changes other things. Your position is entrenched in your interpretive liberties.

#36 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 March 2014 - 09:51 PM

You're responding to this thread in the way you've mentioned in the other thread.

And Actually - It's proving my point that you could be taking interpretive liberties in either YEC or OEC.

Theopneustos. How you interpret that changes other things. Your position is entrenched in your interpretive liberties.

 

So then you agree that YEC is true.  I'm glad you're coming around.  



#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 March 2014 - 09:53 PM

(Note:  By way of clarification, my research indicates "tonne" refers to a metric ton of 1000 kg. (2200 pounds)

 

4 tonnes per roller... Do you think this is acceptable?

Your suggestion was 15 inch diameter logs.  So, yes.  Besides, the vast majority of those stones were much less than the "60 tonnes" you claimed.  In addition, log rollers was only offered as a suggestion of a possible way to move these stones.  I can think of three or four other alternatives.

 

 

I got the information from here

 

http://wiki.answers...._stone?#slide=1

 

I didn't "make it up" as you claim.

I didn't claim you made it up, I asked if you did. 

 

Considering the density of the blocks you were suggesting is 3 times that of the rock used in the pyramids, it is only reasonable to wonder about their composition and your source.  That is especially true when their density of this hypothetical rock approaches that of iron.

 

 

Perhaps consider that your own calculations using the density of rock determines that there would be 4 tonnes per roller, yet now somehow your "research" determines this would be 4 tonnes per block...

All I did was show that 6x6 rock you were presenting would weigh a fraction of what you claimed. 

 

As for my research showing the typical block was only 4 tonnes, I cite the link you provided:

"One pyramid block or stone is equal to about 2.5 tons."

 

It is worth note that your source says the pyramid blocks weigh 2.5 tons.... only 5,000 lb.  I said my research showed the weight is 5,000 to 9,000 pounds.  Your source is at the low end of my range.  What's the problem?

 

 

Figuring out how they could have moved the blocks IS determining the method they used... So this is your own self-contradictory claim.

I can give you three or four ways they could have moved the blocks.  This does not show which of those methods they used.

 

 

piasan, you are so evasive.  

If I have not been able to respond to all your questions, I apologize.  Time is limited.  I'll get back to your questions with my next post.

 

 

Again, what does moving blocks have to do with building pyramids??

Other than you can't build the pyramids without moving the blocks?  I don't know how we got off to moving around the blocks in the pyramids.  Perhaps the it came up with regard to "lost" technologies.  I don't know and I don't care enough to go back and try to figure it out.

 

 

If this is proof to you the pyramids were built by men, why wouldn't a full size Ark in Kentucky which is an actual built structure, not just a bunch of wood being built moved around on ramps, also be proof to you?   

You don't seem to understand.  I have no question at all that a structure the size of the ark could have been built with the technology available to Noah.  That's all Ham's theme park attraction is.  A wood building ..... not a seaworthy vessel.  The difference is absolutely huge.

 

The question isn't whether or not the ark could have been built.  The issue is if it could last a year in the open sea.  The problem is hull flexure.



#38 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 March 2014 - 09:59 PM

If I have not been able to respond to all your questions, I apologize.  Time is limited.  I'll get back to your questions with my next post.

 

You've been asked now about 4 times to explain why you ignore science in regard to the Resurrection, but embrace it (hide behind it) when it comes to Genesis.  

 

I'll just keep asking, but the silence is deafening.  



#39 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 20 March 2014 - 10:04 PM

So then you agree that YEC is true.  I'm glad you're coming around.


So I'm taking it you've conceded my point.

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 March 2014 - 05:02 AM

Calminian. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it's not about a ship being built as much as it is the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Suffice it to say, I do think a wooden ship fully loaded and floating for a year in open ocean would be good evidence.

 

I mentioned Chinese Treasure ships which were larger than the ark and were also seaworthy. So there is your good evidence.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users